The Smith et al model of morphogenesis given in [1]} is a
caricature of reality. Our model is a caricature of their caricature. It's
simplicity however, allows us to analyse it with calculus. It is not adequate
to account for the creation of the initial primordia. As was recognized by
Alan Turing [2]}, the initiation of primordia de novo requires
a reaction that liberates energy. But does our simplified model retain some
essence of reality? Can it account for the placement of subsequent primordia
and their qualitative properties?
